If I'm going to be completely honest, neither of the lectures that took place instead of the seminars were particularly revealing to me. This wasn't so much due to the subject matter, which I found at least moderately interesting, but instead due to the lack of quality and relevance of what was discussed. Especially in the first of the two, I found that the matters discussed were very basic indeed, offering no real further discussions or cause for further philosophical debate.
The only thing that really stuck with me out of both lectures was the example of the student and the bear out in the woods, which I thought was an interesting and amusing take on creative problem solving - but the underlying thought, to look beyond your assumptions on the actual problem, was hardly very new. Indeed, I felt that the suggestion that 90% of problems can be solved by defining the problem rather than the solution was incredibly overstated. I did agree that the problem-defining part of looking for a resolution is commonly overlooked, but to state that it would account for the far majority of the entire process was so superficial to my mind that it almost seemed populist.
2 comments:
Couldn’t agree more about the content of the both lectures. For me the second lecture for the theme was a complete waste of time. I feel that most of the time, except for the first two themes, that the lectures could have tried harder to focus on the important content of the course.
Hi, interesting reflection, nice and short. The first lecture used a practical way to explain how to design research by using some vivid examples makes student get a in-depth understanding for that part. The second lecture described by using so many acdemic terms, however, just like you, i was not get so much for that course, but i think i would find more useful things by reading others posts. Good job, and good luck!
Post a Comment